homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums!


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums!   » News, Reviews, Views!   » Rants, Raves, Rumors!   » Is it a war? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Author Topic: Is it a war?
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 27, 2004 00:07      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:
BIG defecit + Unsustainable spending - Exports - foreign investment + New round of inflation
= biggest economic growth, larger than even Clinton's.

Do my eyes deceive me? A righty saying that government deficits are a good thing because they boost economic growth - how very Keynesian of you.

I thought it was an article of faith on the Right these days that deficits were an absolute evil, at least that used to be the case until GWB turned a record surplus into a record deficit.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10702 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 4 posted March 27, 2004 04:33      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If I thought that most people had Experience in Combat Arms Military Units, Knowledge of Intelligence Gathering Against Foreign Countries, and a Solid Understanding of Economics, then I wouldn't be concerned about rampant ignorance.

However, I believe a few "myths" need to be dispelled .....

=====

Distinguish Between "Political Wars" and Other Wars : Wars which result from Politics are "Short." Wars where at least One Party is driven by Religion or Ethnic Hatred (ie. Civil Wars) are Long and Bloody, typically seeking to Maximize Civilian Death, and Diplomatic Efforts to Bring Peace have Little or No Effect.
Note: Terrorists are driven by Religion; otherwise, they wouldn't keep using the term "Holy War."

=====

Hollywood Combat Tactics ARE WRONG : "Rocky" is boxing. Round 1 he gets beat up. Round 2 he loses four teeth. Rounds 3 through 11, he never lands a single punch but continues getting beaten to a pulp. Round 12 (In the Movies) he screams "Adrian!" and wins the fight by a Knock-Out.
Reality is that in Round 12, Rocky's Dead Body is Dragged from the ring and everything in his locker is stolen.

=====

There is NO James Bond and No xXx (as played by Vin Diesel) : Spies Do Not Jump Out of Helicopters with Jet-skis, Race Up a River while Thousands of Soldiers Fire Anti-Aircraft Missles and RPGs, Smash Though the Palace Window, Make Love to Four Exotic Super-Models Which just happen to be in the palace, Disarm an Atomic Warhead with a Four-Digit Code which happens to be his Hamster's Birthday, Knock Out the Villian with a Karate-Chop, and Take the Dictator to U.N. via Rocket Powered Balloon to Stand Trial for Oil Spillage in International Waters.
  Note: Until GOD is on the CIA Payroll Full-Time, there will be things happening in other countries that neither Congress nor the President know.

=====

Cheap Oil vs. War on Iraq : Everyone familiar with military operations knows that they are not cheap. The Cheap Way to Get Oil from Iraq would have been to open a Black Market with Saddam and Smuggle Weapons (of any kind) in violation of Sanctions and play the Kick-Back Game. Russia and France knew this, and this is why Saddam had Modern French and Russian Weapon Systems, and why the French and Russians violently opposed war on Iraq.

=====

Death Toll from War on Iraq : Apparently, some people don't understand what Genocidal Tyrant means.
try http://www.isg-iags.org/newsletters/28/Saddam.html
  "Saddam is the Cause of Iraqis' Suffering"

* up to 100,000 Iraqi Kurds murdered by Saddam.
* Ma'dan, or Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq: formerly lush green areas, the marshes have decreased by over 90 percent. "The Central and Al Hammar marshlands have been completely collapsed with, respectively, 97 percent and 94 percent of their land cover transformed into bare land and salt crusts."
In simple terms, Saddam forced these people to flee as refugees, or die of stavation. If you heard about people in Basra being "unhappy" that the U.S. did not kill Saddam , this is a Big reason.
* The Iraqi government built -- since 1991 and in the face of the alleged starvation and death among its population due to lack of food and medicines -- as many as 78 new palaces with magnificent and luxurious fittings, costing an estimated several billion dollars.

Some may believe that Iraqi deaths which resulted from Saddam's use of military equipment in Schools and Hospitals are more horrendous than 100,000 deaths caused by Saddam's use Chemical Weapons and Starvation. However, I believe otherwise.

=====

Protection Without the Use of Force : Let's say you have a Fox in your Henhouse, and you have two options for Protecting your Poultry.

(1) Non-Lethal: Chase Fox with Cattle-Prod. When the Fox attempts to Kill a Chicken, Shock It with the Cattle-Prod. Repeat each time Fox Attacks a Chicken.
(2) Lethal: Kill the Fox.

Maintaining "No-Fly-Zones" to Prevent Attacks on Ethnic Groups may prevent genocide, but it is extremely Expensive and the Cost Adds Up When It Goes On for More than a Decade. Note: It's significantly cheaper to kill the fox to save the chickens.

If you think "it's easy to chasing a fox while using a cattle-prod":
"Since 1998, there have been no international inspections for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq because of Iraq's refusal to allow in inspectors with free access."

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 27, 2004 04:38      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My chief worry about the rhetoric of war is that turning people into an enemy which must be defeated, does tend to prevent any analysis of what drove them to that position in the first place. During the Vietnam War General Westmoreland famously said that if you have got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow. This did not happen then and will not now. War also means many people who would otherwise stay neutral have to become involved. GWB has said that if you are not with us you are against us. I think that statement increases the numbers of your enemies more than your friends.

I know that those on the right like to caricature this argument as one of appeasement, but it is not so. One can conduct campaigns against Al Qaida at the same time as trying to engage with the huge problems that afflict the third world, and this war will not have a hope of any conclusion until the US has some notion of why all these people hate you so much. Sadly at the moment few in the US are even interested in the question.

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 27, 2004 05:43      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
If I thought that most people had Experience in Combat Arms Military Units, Knowledge of Intelligence Gathering Against Foreign Countries, and a Solid Understanding of Economics, then I wouldn't be concerned about rampant ignorance.

If I Thought that most PeoPle Had ExpeRience In Correct Capitalization Of English Sentences, I Would Not Have To Be A Pedantic Bastard. [Wink]

quote:

Note: Terrorists are driven by Religion; otherwise, they wouldn't keep using the term "Holy War."

Note: George W Bush is driven by Stupidity, otherwise he wouldn't keep using the term 'Crusade'.
(especially if he knew how badly the last few ended for the Xtians)

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10702 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
eDJ
Geek
Member # 1950

Icon 3 posted March 27, 2004 07:33      Profile for eDJ     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I know that those on the right like to caricature this argument as one of appeasement, but it is not so. One can conduct campaigns against Al Qaida at the same time as trying to engage with the huge problems that afflict the third world, and this war will not have a hope of any conclusion until the US has some notion of why all these people hate you so much. Sadly at the moment few in the US are even interested in the question.
Hear hear!

If you would be willing to develope some thoughts
I would enjoy reading them. Many where I live do not even know or understand their own history and
class warfare has created devistation. Today most young people simply move away to find prospairity....and then.....look back in anger.

eDJ

--------------------
I don't give a shit...I don't take any shit. I'm not in the shit business.

Posts: 131 | From: Ohio | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
weensicka
Geek
Member # 1436

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted March 27, 2004 07:40      Profile for weensicka   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
[QUOTE]If I Thought that most PeoPle Had ExpeRience In Correct Capitalization Of English Sentences, I Would Not Have To Be A Pedantic Bastard.



Or, He could just be hoping for a Revival of Eighteenth-Century Writing style; They capitalized all Nouns, proper or not. [Wink]

As for the war in Iraq, v 2.0., the thing that I find *most* disturbing is that when you listen to the news, if you forget about place names, etc. it sounds exactly like Vietnam. Does anyone else see this? I mean, we have the daily body count, the guerilla attacks, the promise of a quick short war and we're pushing a year already. Granted, I wasn't actually born yet when Vietnam occured, but I've studied a lot, I've talked with my father who was a soldier there, and I've taught literature about the war to my English classes. It scares me that my students either can't see or are reluctant to see any parallels. The latest thing that scared the crap out of me was I saw a presidential campaign ad for some independent candidate who was going to "Get us out of the War in Iraq."

Oh...my...God.... [shake head]

--------------------
Is there any tea on this spaceship?

Posts: 182 | From: oh, just somewhere random | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 27, 2004 10:42      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by eDJ:
Hear hear!

If you would be willing to develope some thoughts
I would enjoy reading them. eDJ

Wish I was clever enough and wise enough to provide some coherent answers. I wish there were some simple answers. Some of the factors that I believe are of relevance are

1. While the West has enjoyed greater and greater prosperity over the last 30 odd years, the 3rd World has not. This must leave them feeling exploited, especially when the prevailing economic orthodoxy now insists that the free market is the only mechanism for progress. I doubt that, for example, those working in sweatshops producing high priced trainers for Nike see it that way.

2. The admirable self confidence and adventurousness that are a deep part of the US character often spill over into arrogance, insensitive ignorance, and bullying in their treatment of the rest of the world in general, and more particularly of anyone making an alternative argument. The treatment of France and the French over Iraq is a spectacularly good example of this. I could forgive the US its obnoxious behaviour if they had actually dealt with the arguments put forward by France and Germany in addition to being insulting, but that did not happen.

3 . The US sometimes appears to be a self contained almost inward looking place to us from the outside. There is of course a historic isolationist political tradition in US. The role of global policeman which has been thrust on the US is one you unsurprisingly seem to feel uneasy with. GWB exemplifies much of this, and I believe his chief political weakness is his lack of knowledge of the rest of the world, his parochialism if you will. I believe that I read somewhere that before becoming President he had never travelled outside the US. It shows.

4. There is also of course the simple jealousy of losers for the global winners. Nothing much you can (or should) do about that.

The collapse of communism has also removed an alternative way, and a focus for this discontent within the conventional political process, so it erupts in unexpected and bizarre ways. I do not believe that the root cause of this conflict is actually religious, but once religion is attached to these grievances it makes their resolution infinitely more intractable.

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dr Cyclops
Assimilated
Member # 986

Member Rated:
2
Icon 1 posted March 27, 2004 16:15      Profile for Dr Cyclops   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Look at the market... Where is your basis for that?
1. The market depends on investors. Investors are as ignorant as normal people.

2. Alan Greenspan says that we need to cut on SS benefits or the program will run out of money. Nobody will cut benefits, it's political suicide.

-Social Security is unsustainable. You are dumping money into somthing with no return of any of the money you put in.

-In short: spending for SS will only increase, and that money has to come from somewhere [YOU!] plus none of that money goes back into the economy.

3. Tax cuts give money to somebody, right?

When someone gets their check they put the money:

A. To the bank, who is better off loaning money to the government (since the government can pay higher intrest rates). (which means less loanmonies to entrepeneurs like me).

B. To some small company that gets the shit taxed out of it.

C. To a big company that pays executives millions of dollars. (the money sits there in cash reserves, realestate, etc.)

We are screwed, get your money overseas!

--------------------
When the W'rkncacnter came, Pthia was killed, and Yrro in anger, flung the W'rkncacnter into the sun. The sun burned them, but they swam on its surface.

Posts: 499 | From: Upon the slab, Unbroken. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 1 posted March 28, 2004 17:32      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's an outline of analysis and causes of war. (It seems rather dry and tedious...)

National Security Law Notes (308K)

  http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~lawcontk/doc00009.doc

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
GameMaster
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1173

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 28, 2004 22:28      Profile for GameMaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This pales before the invasion of two nations that no foreign power has ever been able to effectively control and the consequences of which are the further alienation of those that want to destroy us.
Kosovo? Bosnia? Hello!

It also pales before lies that have sent people our age and younger home in boxes, and pales before the total evaporation of a budget surplus.
Better in boxes than being dragged through the streets of Somalia. As for the Surplus, that money was money they overcharged us, kept without giving us intrest on (anyone who gets a return without cuts, is donating the intrest to /dev/null). The Surplus is the government over charging us for it's services of passing stupid laws and paying for presidential internships with the "presidential staff." Moreover, the first year of surplus was created by the Republic congress "shutting down" governement and send "non-esential" personnel home... Why does the government have non-essential employees?

Clinton did not make me ashamed to be an American. Bush has.

My bitterness towards the way the federal budget has fucked me over is posted elsewhere.
Will look for it, but it has been very nice to my family.

As for Nader, he can go to hell if he runs this year. Voting for Nader is throwing your vote down the drain, or, even worse, to the GOP.
Yeah, I love Nadar... [Smile]

[b]I'm no fan of Kerry, but Bush and his tax cuts for the super rich can kiss my sweaty ass. It's not like those tax cuts benefit me at all - I'm too fucking poor.
</rant> [/QB]
For the rich my ass. My grandmother's in the lowest tax bracket, and is keeping 5% more of her anual earnings because of the Bush tax cuts. That 5% will help her keep her house, her 2 phone lines her car and pay utilities (and cable). Keep in mind she is just shy of being under the "poverty line," what joy it is that even our worst off have such a high standard of living.

Kerry, on the other hand, would remove the tax cuts and raise taxes... Which would devistate us, and my dear Grandmother. And unlike Gore, my Grandmother's situation is not imaginary.

--------------------
My Site

Posts: 3038 | From: State of insanity | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
GameMaster
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1173

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 28, 2004 22:34      Profile for GameMaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do my eyes deceive me? A righty saying that government deficits are a good thing because they boost economic growth - how very Keynesian of you.
I'm not a rightian. I'm libertarian, I believe in keeping money I earn. If and when the US Government falls, I need money (not government services) to turn into items to barder.

I thought it was an article of faith on the Right these days that deficits were an absolute evil,
More so is the evil of over taxation.

at least that used to be the case until GWB turned a record surplus into a record deficit.
A record surplus the Right had to shut government down to get passed.

--------------------
My Site

Posts: 3038 | From: State of insanity | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted March 28, 2004 22:36      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:
This pales before the invasion of two nations that no foreign power has ever been able to effectively control and the consequences of which are the further alienation of those that want to destroy us.
Kosovo? Bosnia? Hello!

The Serbs aren't too thrilled with us for that - talk to one some day. They're actually very nice people, at least the gaggle I've met here in CO are. And we had allies in those conflicts, where as in Iraq we alienated our allies as well as furthering the cause our enemies have against us.

As for your Grandma's situation, well, I'll worry about her after I've found out whether or not there's funding for me to remain in grad school.

I never felt robbed by taxes. Perhaps because an imperceptible cut (we're talking micro cents) of what gets withheld from my pay check comes back to me as that pay check. But that may change in the next few months.

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 29, 2004 02:04      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:
I'm not a rightian.

Your writing in this thread suggest otherwise.

I'm libertarian,


Libertarian == right-wing anarchist.

I believe in keeping money I earn. If and when the US Government falls, I need money (not government services) to turn into items to barder.

You believe in something for nothing.
It's clear you want some government 'services', even if it's only their supply of hired-killers to kill furriners for you. Yet you're not willing to pay the taxes required to pay for these services, instead you'd rather run up a deficit that 'someone' will have to pay eventually.

I thought it was an article of faith on the Right these days that deficits were an absolute evil,
More so is the evil of over taxation.

Lets see, the Bush tax cuts for the rich (I disremember the details, but it was around 90% of the cut goes to the top 10% of income earners) have produced an annual deficit of $1,000,000,000,000
That's debt that will need to be paid eventually.
Now $1,000,000,000,000 divided by (roughly) 250,000,000 'merkins = about $4,000 per 'merkin debt.
Per year.
Have you had a $4,000 /year tax cut?

If not, you're worse off.

[edit] check out todays Doonesbury.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10702 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
greycat

Member # 945

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted March 29, 2004 07:20      Profile for greycat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, so my post may be redundant. But I feel compelled to respond to two pieces of ASM's message:

quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
Wars where at least One Party is driven by Religion or Ethnic Hatred [...] are Long and Bloody, typically seeking to Maximize Civilian Death, and Diplomatic Efforts to Bring Peace have Little or No Effect.
Note: Terrorists are driven by Religion; otherwise, they wouldn't keep using the term "Holy War."

George W. Bush's friends, at least, are driven by religion and by ethnic hatred. He's a self-proclaimed Christian. His father was the same -- in fact, Bush Sr. is the one who said "I don't think atheists can be citizens".

His "war on terror" is a thinly disguised "war on the Middle East". Ethnic profiling has sent hundreds, if not thousands, of people to Guantanamo just for the crime of Looking Arabic. Many thousands more have been detained and hassled for the crime of Entering An Airport While Looking Arabic.

So, yes, you're absolutely right when you say that these people who are full of hatred and religion are to blame for the bloodbath. And Bush is leading them all.

quote:
Let's say you have a Fox in your Henhouse, and you have two options for Protecting your Poultry.

(1) Non-Lethal: Chase Fox with Cattle-Prod [...]
(2) Lethal: Kill the Fox.

You present this metaphor as a justification for the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent slaughter of Iraqi civilians. But your metaphor is fatally flawed because there was no fox in our henhouse. Saddam was not a threat to the United States.

And now, on with the thread....

Posts: 1522 | From: Ohio, USA | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
spungo
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1089

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 29, 2004 07:32      Profile for spungo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
Note: Terrorists are driven by Religion; otherwise, they wouldn't keep using the term "Holy War."

Bullsh&t. Ever heard of the IRA? ETA? Bader-Meinhof? The over-riding raison d'être is autonomy and/or political change. Religion is often used as a cover to rally folk to your side, via whatever convenient means.

--------------------
Shameless plug. (Please forgive me.)

Posts: 6530 | From: Noba Scoba | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
GameMaster
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1173

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 29, 2004 09:55      Profile for GameMaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your writing in this thread suggest otherwise.
I'm economically conservitive, I'm all for free enterprise and that means I'm all for the Bush tax cuts. As for the war, I feel we did need to do something about Iraq; granted I'm not thrilled with the idea or the practice of war, and my reasons for dealing with the Iraq threat has little to WMDs (although that was a small factor). I would have loved for there to be a peacful resolution; but when you are against a heartless, murderous dictator who doesn't honnor international contracts, reason won't typically work. I also think we need end our relience on China because of human right issues, and our aliance with Saudi is a huge mistake. My foriegn policy veiws may not be in sych with the Libertarian party, but that is neither here nor there.

Libertarian == right-wing anarchist.
No. The Right and Left wing designations are narrow minded at best, the political scae cannot be accuratly discribed as a line.
In general, the "Right" are for economically free and socially inhibitaed policy. "Let companies do what they want, but no gay marrage."
The "Left" are for economically inhibited and socially free policy. "Tax companies to death, but how ever you live your life is your business."
Libertarians are for freedom in enterprise and in personal lives. "As long as no one is harming anyone, let companies and people do as they wish."

You believe in something for nothing.
I'm not saying all taxation is wrong by any means. I don't believe in taxing production though, it isn't morally or economically sensible. A reasonable tax on consumption is ideal, and it would even out the tax burden. The top 5% of the wealthiest people pay 90% of the tax burden, simply because they are sucsessful. If you tax consumption instead, they may still end up paying 90% or more, but they'd be paying it because they consume more.

It's clear you want some government 'services', even if it's only their supply of hired-killers to kill furriners for you. Yet you're not willing to pay the taxes required to pay for these services, instead you'd rather run up a deficit that 'someone' will have to pay eventually.
No. The Government deficit isn't from defense spending. When the Republican party shutdown government and they sent "all non-essential" workers home was the first year of surpluss for the government. Why does a government have non-essential employees??? Why do the congress and Senate set their own salary and retirement package? Why will they have arm gaurds in nice black suits for the rest of thier life after they leave office on our dime? The idea of a fulltime carreer politician was not in the founders minds when they invissioned the legislative branch. Most government spending is lost in the beuracracy, and the solution to the deficit is cutting spending, not upping taxes.

Lets see, the Bush tax cuts for the rich (I disremember the details, but it was around 90% of the cut goes to the top 10% of income earners)
Which is fine when you realize that the top 5% of the population pay 90% of the tax burden (per the IRS's own records).

have produced an annual deficit of $1,000,000,000,000
Collecting (less) money doesn't cause a deficit. Spending more money than you take in does. There are too many federal programs that should be handled by the states. The federal government is too big for it's britches. This is one place I heavily disagree with both parties, as they all profit from big government.

That's debt that will need to be paid eventually.
Now $1,000,000,000,000 divided by (roughly) 250,000,000 'merkins = about $4,000 per 'merkin debt.
Per year.
Have you had a $4,000 /year tax cut?
If not, you're worse off.

This shouldn't be payed by raising taxes, it should be paid by cutting the fat out of our federal government. The US Congress has too long been reading "necessary and proper" to mean "what ever the hell you want to pass." We have 26,911 words in laws about the sale of cabbage... 26,911 words we paid many congress men to write and argue about. Cabbage is not mentioned once in the Constitution, just imagine how many words were written on the sales and regulation of drugs, tabacco, fire arms and tires... These fine cabbage law writers will never have to work another day in their life -- to aford their lavish homes, but the federal budget needs to be solved by raising taxes?

Posts: 3038 | From: State of insanity | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
GameMaster
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1173

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 29, 2004 10:09      Profile for GameMaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:
This pales before the invasion of two nations that no foreign power has ever been able to effectively control and the consequences of which are the further alienation of those that want to destroy us.
Kosovo? Bosnia? Hello!

The Serbs aren't too thrilled with us for that - talk to one some day. They're actually very nice people, at least the gaggle I've met here in CO are. And we had allies in those conflicts, where as in Iraq we alienated our allies as well as furthering the cause our enemies have against us.

As for your Grandma's situation, well, I'll worry about her after I've found out whether or not there's funding for me to remain in grad school.

I never felt robbed by taxes. Perhaps because an imperceptible cut (we're talking micro cents) of what gets withheld from my pay check comes back to me as that pay check. But that may change in the next few months.

I wrote a longer reply to this last night, must not have submitted it...

What we did in Kosovo and Bosnia was wrong. Clinton made huge mistakes in these "police actions" by "executive order." The war in Iraq is a lot different in many respects. I mentioned them to point out that Kerry and the democratic party are not a solution to the Iraq problem. Even if we stop our war on Iraq and pull all our troops home (which Kerry doesn't want, look at his voting record), we will still be at war because terrorist groups will still be at war with us. I look at what we have done in Iraq as a sperate issue than the war on Terrorism. As the reasons I support what we have done in Iraq are more about the mass graves then the terrorists (I know that isn't the case for most (all?) Republicans).

I haven't seen the thread about your plight with the grad school, but I am sorry. As for my Grandmother's situation I'd just like to ask, why shouldn't my Grandmother keep just 5% more of what she actually EARNS?


EDIT: To anyone against the Bush tax cuts, I remind you that you don't have to take any deductions if you really want the government to take more of your money. Moreover, you could ajust your W4 form and pay any amount more than you are required, and either loan or give your money to the government.

--------------------
My Site

Posts: 3038 | From: State of insanity | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 29, 2004 12:25      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:
Lets see, the Bush tax cuts for the rich (I disremember the details, but it was around 90% of the cut goes to the top 10% of income earners)
Which is fine when you realize that the top 5% of the population pay 90% of the tax burden (per the IRS's own records).

Buzz Buzz (Bullshit detector going off)

Assuming that wealth distribution in the US is not radically different to that of the UK and tax brackets likewise, you are not only plain wrong there, but in fact the opposite is the case. No government can raise a significant amount of extra revenue without affecting the general burden of taxation, and conversely it is relatively cheap to give those in the top bracket a tax cut.

So setting tax rates for the top bracket more a moral than fiscal question, though on a practical level it is counterproductive to set your top rates too high as this only encourages accountants to find new inventive ways of avoiding tax.

Some time ago it used to be claimed that 7% of the population had 84% of the wealth, perhaps that was the statistic you were searching for, and it has in my opinion a higher probability of approximating to the truth.

P.S. Crikey, I have made 500 posts here! I must find a better way to spend my time, that is truly serious, profitable, and increases the sum of human happiness. And saves the rain forest too.

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 29, 2004 15:37      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:
Your writing in this thread suggest otherwise.
I'm economically conservitive, I'm all for free enterprise and that means I'm all for the Bush tax cuts. As for the war, I feel we did need to do something about Iraq;


Translation: you want the war, but you don't want to pay for it.

Libertarian == right-wing anarchist.
No. The Right and Left wing designations are narrow minded at best,

But it's one you're happy to use...
quote:
Gamemaster:
left-winger pinheads and their straight party tickets....

It's clear you want some government 'services', even if it's only their supply of hired-killers to kill furriners for you. Yet you're not willing to pay the taxes required to pay for these services, instead you'd rather run up a deficit that 'someone' will have to pay eventually.

No. The Government deficit isn't from defense spending. When the Republican party shutdown government and they sent "all non-essential" workers home was the first year of surpluss for the government. Why does a government have non-essential employees???


Oh come on, are you that clueless?
Every organisation has some functions that need to be performed every day, and others that need to be performed, but nothing really bad will happen if they're delayed a week or 2.
Ambulance drivers need to be there 24/7/265, road repair workers do not. Does that mean that fixing roads is an unnecessary extravagance?

Lets see, the Bush tax cuts for the rich (I disremember the details, but it was around 90% of the cut goes to the top 10% of income earners)
Which is fine when you realize that the top 5% of the population pay 90% of the tax burden (per the IRS's own records).

No it's not.
For a start, I very much doubt if 90% of tax is paid by the top 5%, that would be way out of line with most other nations.
Even assuming that it was true in the US, it's still not 'fine' to be gutting the public schools and health system to give tax cuts to people who already have lots of money.


Collecting (less) money doesn't cause a deficit. Spending more money than you take in does.

Cutting revenue while increasing spending produces a deficit. Basic arithmetic.

This shouldn't be payed by raising taxes, it should be paid by cutting the fat out of our federal government.
[snip] but the federal budget needs to be solved by raising taxes?


Did I say anything about raising taxes?
Just not cutting them when you can't afford to.

btw - aren't you the one who said of Surplusses...
quote:

As for the Surplus, that money was money they overcharged us, kept without giving us intrest on (anyone who gets a return without cuts, is donating the intrest to /dev/null). The Surplus is the government over charging us for it's services

A Surplus is how that debt gets paid back, the more deficit you run now, the more 'overcharging for services' needs to be done later. This is an arguement I'm sure you would agree with if it was a lefty in the Whitehouse.



--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10702 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jessycat

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1171

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted March 29, 2004 15:51      Profile for Jessycat     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I feel silly making a request when I'm not contributing to this thread... but I am reading it. Anyway:
GameMaster, when you quote people, could you say who it is you're quoting? All this scrolling up and down to try to remember who said what is making my head hurt. Thanks! [Smile]

Posts: 491 | From: NYC | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
GameMaster
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1173

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 29, 2004 19:09      Profile for GameMaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
Assuming that wealth distribution in the US is not radically different to that of the UK and tax brackets likewise, you are not only plain wrong there, but in fact the opposite is the case. No government can raise a significant amount of extra revenue without affecting the general burden of taxation, and conversely it is relatively cheap to give those in the top bracket a tax cut.

I was wrong. It isn't 90%... but it is still very high. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/myths_john_stossel_040123-5.html
To be perfectly honest, the brackets punish success. There have to be several points on the scale where it is in your intrest to make a little less, so you keep more of your own money (and have more total money). Such a thing is non-sensical and illogical. Even after the brakes the percentage of the tax burdn works out about the same. I am still an advocate for a flat sales tax (which isn't a traditional Republican idea (only Forbes suggested such a thing as a real platform)).

quote:
So setting tax rates for the top bracket more a moral than fiscal question, though on a practical level it is counterproductive to set your top rates too high as this only encourages accountants to find new inventive ways of avoiding tax.
Moral? I will agree that there is some morality in helping those down on their luck with either a "earned tax income credit" or with welfare, but beyond that... Why take a larger percent from those who happen to be fiscally successful? Why tax production? Taxing consumption makes a lot more sense. The brakedown would still be tilted (perhaps even more so) towards the rich paying for most of the burden; and the psychological and moral questions would be toward a healthier GDP&GNP and even would act as fiscal insentive for less waste.

quote:
Some time ago it used to be claimed that 7% of the population had 84% of the wealth, perhaps that was the statistic you were searching for, and it has in my opinion a higher probability of approximating to the truth.
No the stats I was misserably failing at recalling is the link posted above.
Posts: 3038 | From: State of insanity | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
GameMaster
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1173

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 29, 2004 19:29      Profile for GameMaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
I'm economically conservitive, I'm all for free enterprise and that means I'm all for the Bush tax cuts. As for the war, I feel we did need to do something about Iraq;

Translation: you want the war, but you don't want to pay for it.

No. Traslation: Give the money we're paying our needless full time lawmakers and thier interns OUTRAGOUS retirement packages to the war effort.

For the war and not wanting to pay for it is Kerry's position here ( http://vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=3202&can_id=S0421103 ) he votes the war, and here ( http://vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=3330&can_id=S0421103 ) he votes down paying for it, and now he says he's not for the war.

This nation doesn't need FULLTIME law makers who grow into fat cat drunk who murder people *cough* Kenedy *cough*.

quote:
Libertarian == right-wing anarchist.
No. The Right and Left wing designations are narrow minded at best, [/b]
But it's one you're happy to use...

left-winger pinheads and their straight party tickets....

Only in responce to a comment about right-wing pinheads who vote straight party tickets. I disagree with voting for a party, I believe in electing canidates. The party system is what makes the politians all alike. Carreer polititions are made possible by the parties, and carreer politians are bad for America.


[quote]No. The Government deficit isn't from defense spending. When the Republican party shutdown government and they sent "all non-essential" workers home was the first year of surpluss for the government. Why does a government have non-essential employees???

Oh come on, are you that clueless?
Every organisation has some functions that need to be performed every day, and others that need to be performed, but nothing really bad will happen if they're delayed a week or 2.
Ambulance drivers need to be there 24/7/265, road repair workers do not. Does that mean that fixing roads is an unnecessary extravagance?

We're not talking about construction workers, we are talking about beuracratic pencil pushers. Look at Craig Livingstone! The guy had no skills (alright, no skills that could be used legally).

quote:
No it's not.
For a start, I very much doubt if 90% of tax is paid by the top 5%, that would be way out of line with most other nations.
Even assuming that it was true in the US, it's still not 'fine' to be gutting the public schools and health system to give tax cuts to people who already have lots of money.

See above correction. We don't have to "gut" public schools, or cut heath care... We have to cut out the bueracracy. Are you naive enough to believe that this (US) government isn't bloated, isn't too bueracratic and isn't needlessly wasteful.

quote:

Collecting (less) money doesn't cause a deficit. Spending more money than you take in does.

Cutting revenue while increasing spending produces a deficit. Basic arithmetic.

I'm for cutting the budget (granted the GOP isn't but I am).

Did I say anything about raising taxes?
Just not cutting them when you can't afford to.

They are cut now, and look at our Wall street and the employment rates rate of increase...

quote:
A Surplus is how that debt gets paid back, the more deficit you run now, the more 'overcharging for services' needs to be done later. This is an arguement I'm sure you would agree with if it was a lefty in the Whitehouse.

I'll answer this later I have to go now.... :\ I'm not bailing, I just have my ride waiting for me.

--------------------
My Site

Posts: 3038 | From: State of insanity | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 29, 2004 19:30      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I note with interest, on the same page GM linked to above, the following
quote:

Myth No. 6 — Republicans Shrink the Government

Republicans always trot out the slogan that they oppose big government and want to shrink the federal payroll. President Bush tells us that "big government is not the answer." President Reagan told us, "Our government is too big and it spends too much."

But for more than 75 years, no Republican administration has cut the size of government. Since George W. Bush became president, government spending has risen nearly 25 percent.

Big spending increase + big revenue decrease = big deficit.
May I have my PhD in Economics now please?

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10702 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
GameMaster
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1173

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 29, 2004 21:11      Profile for GameMaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
Big spending increase + big revenue decrease = big deficit.
May I have my PhD in Economics now please?

Like I said. I don't agree with GOP's or the Demi's big spending policies, I believe in cutting the federal spending. I think we do need to fund the troops while they are over there. I do think that we need the cuts.

If you really want I will give you an honarary MSPhD... [Razz] ... More Shit piled higher and deeper... [Big Grin] [Wink]

--------------------
My Site

Posts: 3038 | From: State of insanity | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 5 posted March 29, 2004 23:42      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greycat, you're not the only one to post the following sentiment:

Iraqi civilian deaths (although they were largely the result of Iraqi military using human shields in Hospitals and Schools for attack) were slaughter .

Saddam, on the other hand, has killed as many as 100,000 Kurds. Some would use the term Genocide in describing the deaths. In addition, he turned 18,000 square km of wetlands into dead wastes as retribution against the Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq, and spent several billion dollars on palaces while (allegedly) Iraqis starved.

What gentle words do you have to convince me that Saddam deserved to rule these people?

Is there something noble and just in the murder of 100,000 when it's done by the ruler of one's nation?

I assume that you believe that opposition to a tyrant is unacceptable if innocent lives are lost?

Consider this quote about World War II by Martin Niemoeller:
  "First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

... and this quote by Martin Luther King Jr.:
  "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it."

Hitler had less means of attacking the United States than Saddam had, and yet America went to war against Germany.

With this in mind, how would YOU have used the power of the U.S., knowing that innocent Germans would die in war?

(I'll be disappointed if only Greycat answers.)

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

© 2018 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0



homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam